Theorizing Ill Will

"[Hollander] further characterizes this current state as "Times of Social Malaise" (p. 635). I found myself in a disagreement with that rendering of our times. If there is malaise I would proffer that it is a kind of defensive obliviousness that sequesters the ways in which mankind is identified with and ruthlessly pursues hegemnoic motivations. I believe that psychoanalysts in that regard are no different from all other people" (652)"For this reason, I believe attributing our suffering to social malaise may misguide the reader and undermine full understanding of the psychodynamics of hegemony, particularly how and why we are actors in its creation and perpetuation. Malaise implies an overtaken state, leaving obscure who is doing the overtaking. I think it is more accurate to think of hegemony as something that results from an active process that is attractive to a great many people" (652)"I think the suffering is due to motivation that underlay and help rationalize social structures and ideologies - motivations that caused a shift from the more inclusive ideology of Classical liberalism to the exclusionary, elitist neoliberal capitalism" (652-653)"So, how do I propose naming that motivation, more foundational even than the hegemonic one already described? It is humankind's capacity for ill will, even in most dastardly forms - genocide, slavery and all the modern-day "isms." Each of these, after all, has had its rationale and rationalizations and other complex psychological mechanisms to make their formulation, perpetration, and repetitions possible and persistent. It is my point of view that this "ill-will" factor is an elemental, irreducible component of human nature and that it cannot be eradicated" (653)"Thus, my view is that sociopolitical constructs (e.g., neoliberalism) and practices (the "isms") are by-products of the ill-will factor" (653)what evidence can support the existence of this ill-will factor -- does it require evidence? does this formulation foreclose the possibility of change?"Consider Marino's (2011) analysis, which, although focused on health care, I believe is applicable to this matter: "... There are throngs of Americans who detest nothing more than the idea of someone getting something for free, especially if it might involve their tax dollars. Thus, during the recent [and now recurring] debate over health care... the attention of many was riveted on collecting and serving up instances of the tiny percentage of people who perhaps worked the system... to get free medical treatment - as though the shiftless few were the role rather than the exception"" (653)"I ask that we consider that hegemony derives from our common if not universal attraction to domination, economic and otherwise, and that this attraction, dressed in a variety of ways, is fed by an irreducible capacity in us all to feel ill will toward one another" (653-654)"For me, the value of examining M's plight in terms of hegemony and interpellation is that those considerations help the therapist properly recognize despotic societal forces in the minds of the patient and what those forces require of the person's identity and characteristic ways of living" (655)"Finally, I was discomfited by Hollander's use of Carlin's (2005) quote at the beginning of her paper: "[We still call it] the American Dream... because you have to be asleep to believe [in] it'" (p. 635). I reject the notion as inaccurate and unduly if understandably cynical. For me, the American Dream, as expressed in our founding principles, is still alive. It is, however often weakened by other aspects of our American identity, namely, our baser tendencies, our capacity for ill will that sits always at the ready to overthrow our nobler selves (Holmes, 2017)" (656)is it more cynical to believe in the failure/impossibility of the American Dream or that ill will is a possibly universal human trait? also, what’s wrong with a little cynicism?